The Illegitimacy of the Supreme Court

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]They are not legitimate because, among other things, they were appointed by a faction representing only a minority of Americans. [/quote]

False. Demicratically-elected presidents nominated the individuals who were subsequently confirmed by democratically-elected senators. This followed the procedure set forth in the Constitution. So whoever you heard use the word “faction” in this context was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand the argument.

If the court members were not nominated, and gone to the congress for approval, they would be not legitmate, right?

I believe they did that, and are legitimate. I think the writer disagrees with the court decisions, or is a person on the left side. Perhaps I do not understand the word or argument.

Pretty easy. All of the justices on the right were vetted and groomed by the Federalist Society, with funding by right wing and extreme right wing billionaires to change laws to their wishes. Add to it the machinations within the Senate that altered the balance of the court by two seats (Gorsuch and Comey-Barrett)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are very close to Supreme Court dictates being ignored. The court has no power to enforce its rulings.
The conservatives justices have proven beyond a doubt that they are only there to push a political agenda. An agenda that has little support and is not inline with mainstream modern thinking. Add in the open corruption and the court has no moral or legal standing.

Their role is NOT to decide if their decisions are in line with "mainstream modern thinking." Their role is to decide cases BASED ON LAW.
If the law needs to be changed, it is up to our legislators to do that. NOT SCOTUS!
You want them to do the role of Congress. They are not Congress. And, they are not politicians.

True, but they aren't. The Dobbs decision is one of many that surface how blatantly they are ignoring precedent and settled law to upend our society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They make up the law. For example they decided to ignore the part about regulation and militia when overruling laws regulating firearms. And pretend that money is the same thing as speech when negating a campaign finance law.

They are a minority faction ruling by fiat.

What word in the phrase “shall not be infringed” are you unable to grasp. The United States exists today because the colonists had weapons sufficient to defeat the mighty British Army.

To be fair, the rights of not infringing was a well regulated militia. That isn't what the right is arguing in terms of 2A rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why President Biden needs to add many more Justices to the Court. And those Justices need to be chosen with their political ideologies in mind, to offset the 6-7 seat conservative bias the court currently has now.

Because the court we have now is essentially irrelevant. And the decisions they hand down are equally irrelevant, because all those decisions favor the right. Biden needs to add at least 8 progressive Justices to the Court for it to have anything approaching credibility.

Because then it will provide decisions you like as opposed to one’s based on what the constitution requires. Have your representatives work to change the constitution to your liking. That is the path you should be pursuing.

Remember.... you are responding to people who believe the Constitution is malleable and fluid and can be interpreted as they see fit.
Likewise, they believe SCOTUS should rule based on what is popular today and not based on law.

It’s a constitution, not a code of laws. Of course it isn’t calcified.

Changes to the Constitution are made through Amendments. It has been done many times.
And, yes, the Constitution is law. And, it is the basis on which more specific laws in a county, state, or country are made.

the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitution

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United,frame%20and%20constraints%20of%20government.

The 2nd Amendment was radically reinterpreted by Scalia in Heller. Of course it’s “malleable” - we watched Scalia do it himself.

You may not like the decision, but it was based on Constitutional law.

no it wasn't, because the constitution is specific referring to a well regulated militia, which Heller ignored.

[Anonymous]

Oh yawn 🥱. Yes 🥱🥱🥱.

There is no deciding Supreme Court cases based on the law. Oh sure SCOTUS justices tell you after the fact how they voted and why. But that’s meaningless because they have a road map in each case to a legalistic justification for their decisions. So you can’t test in advance what the appropriate legal decision is.

But you can test whether the “liberal” or “conservative” outcome will be chosen, and you can do very well explaining decisions in advance on that basis.

So let’s stop with this “law” silliness. SCOTUS is politics, period. And the GOP has been far ahead of weaklings like Biden, Schumer, Durbin, Obama and Harris. And they’ll continue to be far ahead, regardless of who temporarily occupies the WH and Senate.

So if you’re smart you better be Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh yawn 🥱. Yes 🥱🥱🥱.

There is no deciding Supreme Court cases based on the law. Oh sure SCOTUS justices tell you after the fact how they voted and why. But that’s meaningless because they have a road map in each case to a legalistic justification for their decisions. So you can’t test in advance what the appropriate legal decision is.

But you can test whether the “liberal” or “conservative” outcome will be chosen, and you can do very well explaining decisions in advance on that basis.

So let’s stop with this “law” silliness. SCOTUS is politics, period. And the GOP has been far ahead of weaklings like Biden, Schumer, Durbin, Obama and Harris. And they’ll continue to be far ahead, regardless of who temporarily occupies the WH and Senate.

So if you’re smart you better be Republican.

So you are saying people dumb enough to believe Pizzagate or Tucker Carlson is the path to salvation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand the argument.

If the court members were not nominated, and gone to the congress for approval, they would be not legitmate, right?

I believe they did that, and are legitimate. I think the writer disagrees with the court decisions, or is a person on the left side. Perhaps I do not understand the word or argument.

Pretty easy. All of the justices on the right were vetted and groomed by the Federalist Society, with funding by right wing and extreme right wing billionaires to change laws to their wishes. Add to it the machinations within the Senate that altered the balance of the court by two seats (Gorsuch and Comey-Barrett)

Was that illegal?

I assume, that democratic party can use same manipulation to get favourite future cannidate?

[Anonymous]

I just don’t understand why you would ever risk being Democrat. Republicans have the passion, the money, the tactics and the guns. Democrats have people if they decide to postpone their latte that morning to go vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand why you would ever risk being Democrat. Republicans have the passion, the money, the tactics and the guns. Democrats have people if they decide to postpone their latte that morning to go vote.

Republicans are the head quarterback, Democrats wrote for the literary journal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand the argument.

If the court members were not nominated, and gone to the congress for approval, they would be not legitmate, right?

I believe they did that, and are legitimate. I think the writer disagrees with the court decisions, or is a person on the left side. Perhaps I do not understand the word or argument.

Pretty easy. All of the justices on the right were vetted and groomed by the Federalist Society, with funding by right wing and extreme right wing billionaires to change laws to their wishes. Add to it the machinations within the Senate that altered the balance of the court by two seats (Gorsuch and Comey-Barrett)

Was that illegal?

I assume, that democratic party can use same manipulation to get favourite future cannidate?

Unless there is any proof of a coordinated dark money campaign to essentially create a court from the left, then as you know, never ass-u-me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand the argument.

If the court members were not nominated, and gone to the congress for approval, they would be not legitmate, right?

I believe they did that, and are legitimate. I think the writer disagrees with the court decisions, or is a person on the left side. Perhaps I do not understand the word or argument.

Pretty easy. All of the justices on the right were vetted and groomed by the Federalist Society, with funding by right wing and extreme right wing billionaires to change laws to their wishes. Add to it the machinations within the Senate that altered the balance of the court by two seats (Gorsuch and Comey-Barrett)

Was that illegal?

I assume, that democratic party can use same manipulation to get favourite future cannidate?

It was illegal before Citizens United, but the right ignored that, and then made it legal by codifying dark money in politics, including the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why President Biden needs to add many more Justices to the Court. And those Justices need to be chosen with their political ideologies in mind, to offset the 6-7 seat conservative bias the court currently has now.

Because the court we have now is essentially irrelevant. And the decisions they hand down are equally irrelevant, because all those decisions favor the right. Biden needs to add at least 8 progressive Justices to the Court for it to have anything approaching credibility.

Because then it will provide decisions you like as opposed to one’s based on what the constitution requires. Have your representatives work to change the constitution to your liking. That is the path you should be pursuing.

Remember.... you are responding to people who believe the Constitution is malleable and fluid and can be interpreted as they see fit.
Likewise, they believe SCOTUS should rule based on what is popular today and not based on law.

It’s a constitution, not a code of laws. Of course it isn’t calcified.

Changes to the Constitution are made through Amendments. It has been done many times.
And, yes, the Constitution is law. And, it is the basis on which more specific laws in a county, state, or country are made.

the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitution

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United,frame%20and%20constraints%20of%20government.

The 2nd Amendment was radically reinterpreted by Scalia in Heller. Of course it’s “malleable” - we watched Scalia do it himself.

You may not like the decision, but it was based on Constitutional law.

No. It wasn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand why you would ever risk being Democrat. Republicans have the passion, the money, the tactics and the guns. Democrats have people if they decide to postpone their latte that morning to go vote.

Republicans are the head quarterback, Democrats wrote for the literary journal

Haha. Republicans are meth addled racist yokels being jerked around by charlatan preachers and billionaires who look down on their minions.

[Anonymous]

This one struck a nerve. Republicans know that the only power the Supreme Court has comes from public perception of its legitimacy. That power is being squandered & diminished by court packing, hacks on the bench, venal corrupt judges, and transparently partisan decisions.